The top 5 sellers of 2006 were, in order:

1. Warhammer 40,000

2. WarMachine

3. Hordes

4. Warhammer Fantasy Battles

5. Confrontation

 

per: http://www.icv2.com/articles/home/10315.html

 

 

Nice find. Well, I suppose we can shift the arguments that PP is rapidly growing in popularity in the US from "anecdotal" to "supported by evidence."

I really should finish my Menoth army. And by finish I mean, start.

Thanks for the news, but what bothers me is "ICv2 interviewed game retailers, distributors and publishers for its 2006 market overview published in ICv2 Guide to Games #41." I wouldn't expect any retailer, and certainly not distributors, to lie, but is there any chance to get some numbers?

That's wonderful news. TELL THEM TO START MAKING PLASTICS SO I CAN PLAY!!!

I still wonder if WM+HORDES > 40K+WHFB sales....

I guess this is when the complaining about PP prices commences? *wince*

Very, very interesting. I'm actually surprised it's Confrontation and not FOW or LOTR (yes I know, bubble etc., but it DID sell well for a time, especially among non GW-enthusiasts).

Posted By Breotan on 03/28/2007 1:09 PM
That's wonderful news. TELL THEM TO START MAKING PLASTICS SO I CAN PLAY!!!

Afraid you might start to develop some muscle moving your metal army around the table?

That's some really interesting info, and it doesn't really surprise me.  However, I would definitely be interested in seeing some more solid numbers.

PP certainly has done a good job and have a very strong following. Two companies dominating the top five... would be nice to see others breakthrough too.

I wonder how distant a 5th Confrontation is too. All the game stores around here have their Confrontation stock marked down 33% - 50% off and it still doesn't move at all.

Posted By Crimson Devil on 03/28/2007 1:27 PM

Posted By Breotan on 03/28/2007 1:09 PM
That's wonderful news. TELL THEM TO START MAKING PLASTICS SO I CAN PLAY!!!

Afraid you might start to develop some muscle moving your metal army around the table?

I just don't like hauling metal figures around on public transportation.  Lighter is better.

Besides, I enjoy working (modifying) plastic so much more.  Dremel's are so noisy.

I'm waiting for Flames of War to start making an impact...

Edit:  Just notice Yu-gi-oh was #1 in cards sales.  In my area, the game was dead by October 2006.  Strong initial sales followed by a complete die off?  Or was my area an exception and not the rule?

The other lists are also quite interesting.  Your RPG classic, D & D is #1, the #2 is a "darker" classic RPG, the fourth is a superhero RPG (not suprising with all the blockbuster superhero movies) but most interesting is there are two manga-themed RPG's in the top 5.  I was expecting ShadowRun or one of the LARP systems to make it in.

Thanks Ed, this gives me some things to think about.

These type of press releases always make me laugh, because they have so little actual information in them. They are a few opinions lumped together, with no numbers.

Nice to see those results across the board for all games mentioned. Also good to see Hordes outsold WHFB.

Serves GW right. (even though WHFB seems to be a better game than 40K)

Odd to see yugioh as the top seller. Thats okay though, pokemon was for a short time as well.

Horrorclix made an outstanding showing considering all the other CMG's were presnt the entire year for 2006 while horrorclix wasnt really available untile mid to late october. Good to see it has a strong showing. Kinda sad to see Pirates! didnt make it into the top 5, but considering that they have jumped the shark, cest la vie.

Mikhaila, I thought that was interesting as well. However, it doesn't look like the complete article was included. Did you (or do you) get ICV2 from your distributor by any chance?

Posted By mikhaila on 03/28/2007 3:09 PM

These type of press releases always make me laugh, because they have so little actual information in them. They are a few opinions lumped together, with no numbers.

Pretty much. They "interviewed" people and "concluded" that the games market "stabilized and improved." Uh-huh. So yea, without actual number it all seems spank to me.

These are among the best stats available. But they also mainly use what retailers chose to report in.

The big issue I have with them is that they do not count GW's own distribution network.

This is huge. GW runs lots of stores in malls in multiple countries. These make up a huge portion of their sales. So do direct sales from their website.

These numbers aren't included in the report.

GW's own direct sales from their stores and site for WFB may well exceed Warmachine/Hordes total sales.

This list probably goes a long way towards explaining why Rackham is radically revising Confrontation (basically, it is gone!) and Rag'Narok (basically, it'll be a lot closer to WFB, with pre-painted plastics (for grunts) coming).

Confrag'Narok anyone?

Probably not.

I think Rackham's underestimated the popularity (I know, I know - maybe not!) of Confrontation and overestimated the market's desire for another fantasy battle system. With pre-painted miniatures.

Time will tell...

Does anyone know how well AT-43 is doing?

Around here every FLGS has their Confrontation stock discounted between 33-50% off and it still doesn't move.

One of them hasn't sold a model in the two years I've been living here. On the other hand, the Lions of Alahan Knights are tempting my at $20 for the box, but I know I'd never game with them.

Posted By Furious on 03/28/2007 3:02 PM

I'm waiting for Flames of War to start making an impact...

Edit:  Just notice Yu-gi-oh was #1 in cards sales.  In my area, the game was dead by October 2006.  Strong initial sales followed by a complete die off?  Or was my area an exception and not the rule?

The other lists are also quite interesting.  Your RPG classic, D & D is #1, the #2 is a "darker" classic RPG, the fourth is a superhero RPG (not suprising with all the blockbuster superhero movies) but most interesting is there are two manga-themed RPG's in the top 5.  I was expecting ShadowRun or one of the LARP systems to make it in.

Thanks Ed, this gives me some things to think about.

I am glad to see that M&M has taken hold a bit.  It really isn't a bad system but I would love to see more miniatures for such games.

Yeah, Rackham has some pretty models, great catalogs. I keep starting to order myself a bunch, but I know I'll never play the game much, if at all.

I'll try to get a copy of the entire article to post , and find out how they did their survey. I've seen lots of these over the years, they pretty much amount to "We asked 20 retailers what they though about stuff, and off the top of their heads they said...."

I used to fill out the surveys in Comics Retailer Magazine every few months. My numbers added in caused huge changes in what was hot each month. Turns out there were less than a dozen people sending in info. Small sample, worthless data.

It's kind of laughable to think that Hoardes might have outsold WFB. Hoardes has been very slow for most distributors since the first big rush when it came out. I'm sure PP wished it sold as many hordes books as Skull Pass. )

PP is doing good, and if they keep going like they are, and pay attention to their business, they will continue to do good. But their sales aren't in GW's ballpark yet, by any stretch of the imagination.

Interesting that FOW is not on there.

 As noted this doesn't include GW's own network.

I wonder what the actual revenue numbers are. There could be a steep decline between one and two (or two and three of course). If anyone knew US sales for WFB you could correlate at least a bottom for what Warmachine has.

Don't think too many stores will voluntarily give up their sales figures...

I'll also bet some of these stores do not have accurate records.

I was going to ask mauleed to sight his source, because for some reason i missed the link .. then i went to the link and well, while the source sells magazines, the article is hardly crdible.. no numbers, no hard info, just a list.. 

nice find by the way, but hardly factual.

HA!

No, in fact very, very few stores have accurate breakdowns of sales numbers. It's possible to gain the knowledge by going back over purchasing invoices, or to break out your sales if your using a multi department cash register. Most stores have a register with 10 or so departments, but with broad categories for "Games", "comics", etc, and don't worry about breaking it down further. If a shop uses a computerized register that scans UPC codes, and keeps up with the inventory system, they can get excellant knowledge of sales.

If this survey was like the others I've seen, it was more like:

1. List your top five miniature games. 2. List your top 5 card games...6. How much do you think you are up ar down for the year?....

So more like agragate ancedotal evidence than actual numbers. This breaks down, because with a lack of numbers, it's just adding up rankings. For example:

Say my shop sells 50k in WFB, and 5k in Hoardes. Two other shops just started up, don't carry GW, but sold a 300 in Hordes each. 50, 000 in WFB is better than 5,600 in hordes, but Hoardes gets 2 votes for top game, and WFB gets 1.

The results of this survey are kind of helpful in some ways. If your store didn't sell boardgames, and you wondered what some good ones are, you probably couldn't go wrong getting in one of each of those games.

As an indicator of overall sales in actual numbers for the year, it's pretty poor. GW's numbers are a matter of public record, but PP, FOW, and others are not, and we generally won't see those numbers posted anywhere.

You all are asking for evidence, but are pretty quick to dismiss the results and condemn the methodology without any evidence to support your opinions about it either.

Posted By jfrazell on 03/29/2007 5:12 AM

 As noted this doesn't include GW's own network.

Not sure that it would be relevant. Independent game stores probably don't care that GW sells a lot of their own minis in their own stores. They care what other independent sellers are moving.

So from that perspective the GW sales aren't important. If gamers are coming into non-GW stores and asking for Hordes more than WFB then sellers want to know that.

Posted By Gubs on 03/29/2007 10:02 AM
You all are asking for evidence, but are pretty quick to dismiss the results and condemn the methodology without any evidence to support your opinions about it either.

sounds about par for the course doesn't it?  who needs evidence when you have mobs and torches.. ?

Not me that's for sure!
I get the pitch fork.

Yes, it is interesting considering that as far as I have heard from many channels was that Horrorclix was an utter failure.

I heard that about HorroClix as well. Heck, I even heard rumors of WizKids ending the game after the first release. In my area it sells out but no one is playing it at the FLAGS - even when there are sponsored events (given, the prize support is crap...and just you wait HeroClix line, you're getting the same crappy prize support very soon). But I digress.

From what I've read, Privateer Press is at the precarious point where they can expand to "big company" status or continue to be a small company. I wish for their continued suceess and I hope they'll continue to expand. With any luck they'll go public and we'll have some numbers to view.

Until then, I really appreciate mikhaila's time and information on how the real retail world works. By the way mikhaila (and anyone else who may have knowledge of this stuff), are there any resources for the current state of the gaming industry? Would GAMA have that info? Is there a game/comic retailer's association with info?

The UPC point is an interesting one. Depending on the store they might very well have that data at their fingertips. But only if they use scanners to ring up their merchandise. a lot of FLGS's don't. Scanner tech is a rather high business expense and can be quite time consuming to set up if you didn't start your business with it in place.

I too would like to see the numbers and methodology of the survey before I could just say I completely trust the article. even a simple stat of the significance of the numbers would help prove to me that some kind of statistical method was used.

Its relevant in that this survey is being used to proffer that warmachine is catching up. You have to add in total sales to make any sort of reasonable guesstimate, else its a beauty compeitition form only one channel in the industry.  You need GW sales, Walmart / other major retailer sales, and internet sales.  Now if you limit the statement to "top 5 games in popularity from FLGS's" then this information would be more on point. But frankly FLGS's are continuing to decline so its not a comparable figure absent other information.  

 

 

Posted By Gubs on 03/29/2007 10:02 AM
You all are asking for evidence, but are pretty quick to dismiss the results and condemn the methodology without any evidence to support your opinions about it either.

1) Well, for me, I'd think that having seen this type of survey done at least 50 times in the 20 years I've been retailing would count for something.

2) Having a masters degree in Statistical Theory, and knowing how the data should be collected, and what you need for a sample size to make it valid, also help me form an opinion.

3) Knowing sales numbers that have been given to me by manufacturers and distributors gives me some direct information to help form an opinion. Take it how you will, as I won't be quoting those numbers in a public forum .

As to the methodology, the type of survey uses ranking as it's criteria, with the underlying assumptions a large sample size representing the population, and that the ranking within the samples will have a roughly normal distribution. The question that the survey answers is also important to look at:

"What are the top selling games at independent game stores that bothered to fill out a survey?" is different from

"What games have the highest sales in dollars in the US?"  (I assume US since I doubt they called anyone outside of it.)

Hordes could easily rank high in the first survey, if out of the 20 stores surveyed it sold better than WFB in 11 of the 20. It could do so even if the amount of Hoardes sold in the US was only 1% of the sales of WFB. (Or 10%, or 50%, or 300%.)

Posted By Furious on 03/29/2007 12:26 PM
Until then, I really appreciate mikhaila's time and information on how the real retail world works. By the way mikhaila (and anyone else who may have knowledge of this stuff), are there any resources for the current state of the gaming industry? Would GAMA have that info? Is there a game/comic retailer's association with info?

Sadly, not really, atm.  Gamma does similar surveys like this, and gets similar results. There are bitz of information that turn up, such as the sales from one distributor or another, such as Diamond, Alliance, or ACD. That shows you how the pie looks from their veiwpoint. I get a large amount of retailer to retailer info from industry forums that I am on, and a lot of info from talking to manufacturers directly.

Interestingly, even answering some questions are tough. How many game stores in the US gets numbers from 1000 to 7000, depending on who you talk to, and how you define the term 'game store'.

I'll do some digging, see what the latest surveys of any type are, and through some stuff out, as people seem interested.

while my data isnt all that extensive i can say as of late if you walk in to my lgs you are alot more likely to see and or play hoardes or warmachine than 40k

course your more likely to get hit by a falling satelite in the store  than see a game of warhammer fantasy going on

and i think that is the point that mikhaila is pointing out..

If Privateer Press is actually overtaking Games Workshop, I suspect the reason is the aggressive local support that PP provides. I haven't seen the same level of campaign, league, or demonstration support from Games Workshop in some time. Real competition from another company may drive GW to reevaluate their sales and marketing strategy.

Posted By G.I.Journalist on 03/30/2007 11:59 PM
If Privateer Press is actually overtaking Games Workshop, I suspect the reason is the aggressive local support that PP provides. I haven't seen the same level of campaign, league, or demonstration support from Games Workshop in some time. Real competition from another company may drive GW to reevaluate their sales and marketing strategy.

Don't know about you but every time I go into a GW store I'm asked at least once if I would like a demo game. I have never been offered a demo game of WM or Hordes at an independent retailer. I guess GW Conflict tourneys, Games Days and global web campaigns count for nothing? I would be shocked if PP's turnover was even a 10th of GW's.

Posted By neo.dorsia on 03/31/2007 1:47 PM

Don't know about you but every time I go into a GW store I'm asked at least once if I would like a demo game. I have never been offered a demo game of WM or Hordes at an independent retailer. I guess GW Conflict tourneys, Games Days and global web campaigns count for nothing? I would be shocked if PP's turnover was even a 10th of GW's.

Try going into a independent store and see if you get the same service. The general answer is no.

Yes they count for nothing. The global campaigns are ok, but have become jokes the last couple years. Armageeddon? Its a tie. I dont know anyone that actually played in the CoD one.

Their tournments are nice, but insular. PP's out and about at GenCon and other players. Their expanding, getting their word out.

 

What does GW do again, beyond preach to the choir? Unless you go to their store, you wont get that demo game...

I feel the need to point out to everyone yelling "Where are the real numbers?"  they are there... for sale.

ICv2 is trying to sell an annual report, which has detailed numbers.  The page referenced above is a teaser to get you to buy it.

Full Details

Notice also the above link says data is gathered from major distributors (Alliance, ACD, etc) in addition to interviewing retailers.  These guys seem to do it all.  Based on the pricing (over $130+)  I suspect this is a legiment market analysis document, not simply some random guesswork.

 

Actually, no, it's a lot of guesswork. They don't have industry wide numbers.

In addition, those rankings were for a period of time that included the Hoards release, but did not include Skull Pass. It wasn't an assessment for a year, just a small time period, far as I can tell.

They don't have GW, Battlefronts, or any other direct suppliers numbers. They don't have any distributors numbers, unless that distributor doesn't mind sharing its info with it's direct competitior, Diamond/Alliance. They aren't taking sales numbers from all independents, or even a large number.

ICV2 puts out its "guide to games" , "guidesl to comics", "guides to manga" etc., on a fairly regular basis. They get some numbers from Diamond/Alliance, call up some people in the industry, call around to a few shops, then lump it together and do a top5, or top 10 ranking.

Take them with a large grain of salt.

 

the problem with this kind of thing is that it is not in everyonesw best intrest to have these numbers published

so the numbers wont ever be truly accurate

Posted By Bane Lord Tarturas on 03/29/2007 9:00 PM
while my data isnt all that extensive i can say as of late if you walk in to my lgs you are alot more likely to see and or play hoardes or warmachine than 40k

course your more likely to get hit by a falling satelite in the store  than see a game of warhammer fantasy going on

The problem with this kind of anecdotal evidence (and I'm guilty of whipping it out from time to time too to prove a point) is that it is like the blind men looking at the elephant.  Every gaming store has its devotees who play at the store, run events, etc. that make that particular game look great.  My FLGS played up old school Battletech and some WW1 flying game.  If I just went with what I saw played in store, I wouldn't think PP was doing anything right now.

I had a long conversation with a friend who owns a gaming store in Columbus and I asked him what people were playing.  He talked about how Infinity was really catching on because one of his guys was running demo games, and how GW products were still in slight decline but still a staple.  But he said wryly that the real answer to the question was "World of Warcraft."  I think that this is pretty typical for how the entire business is going right now: stores trying to subsidize flagging sales of classically well-selling products by finding popular new brands to appeal to their patrons.  But at the end of the day, the entire industry is being hamstrung by an growing appeal of outside-of-industry products eating up recreational dollars.

Posted By Witterquick on 04/02/2007 4:19 PM
 But at the end of the day, the entire industry is being hamstrung by an growing appeal of outside-of-industry products eating up recreational dollars.

Damned whippersnappers and their new fangled videe oh games. I blame Malfred.

Posted By Hellfury on 04/02/2007 4:37 PM

Damned whippersnappers and their new fangled videe oh games. I blame Malfred.

I'm trying to keep my own grognard tendencies to a minimum.  I do have a copy of "The Sword and the Flame" that I keep looking at around here somewhere (next to my copy of "Rogue Trader" .

Re: World of Warcraft

I don't think it's eating up recreational dollars. It's pretty cheap. The cost of a single Land Raider will buy you 3-4 months of WoW.

The issue of more one of available time than one of money. (Though the lower cost of WoW may be a factor in this.)

WoW has grabbed quite a few of our Saturday night gamers, and those gamers aren't gaming and therefore aren't buying things. It's not that they compete, but when every moment of downtime is spent in a game world, you aren't doing much else.

and then you have the endless computer upgrades. The wide screen, the video cards, the memory...

Maybe I'm missing something here, but I don't understand is why WoW is considered more of a threat to the gamining industry than previous computer games were. OK so its a MMORPG (or whatever the initials are supposed to be ), but does that make much of a difference?. Computer games have been around for well over two decades now, and in whatever format they have been pretty absorbing of free time: I remember spending entire vacations playing Elite on my sister's mate's Commodore 64 when I was a teenager back in the Dark Ages. When the first Gameboy and Sega handheld games consoles came out in the early '90's there was a whole new generation of electronic gamers created with that craze as well. Other products - PS2, Xbox, whatever, yadda yadda yadda, had similar "boost" effects, which lasted varying periods of time before they became "old hat". Surely this is not a new phenomenon for the gaming industry?

To me it just sounds like an excuse for lack of innovation in attempting to capture the attention of the more fickle end of the gaming market. Core gamers will always buy models from one company or another if they are good enough and cheap enough. The "non-core" end of the market has always had distractions to prevent them buying if the wargaming offer wasn't enticing enough. I don't see WoW as being any different - if WoW hadn't come along, it would have been something else, surely?

Or am I missing something here? Is WoW (and other MMORPGs) truly a radically different beast somehow because of the increased "interactive" element to their offering?

7 million players.

EDIT: Or rather, accounts.

And it sucks souls. No, really. I don't remember knowing too many people before that lost jobs and relationships over Civilization or Doom. It is almost like an addiction. It's hard to get some of the people I know out of their houses because of WoW, and then they are like a heroin addict all night needing a fix. It is crazy stuff.

I know how bad it is. I used to play EQ, but I still liked doing things outside of it.

They're not kidding, Osbad. 7 million accounts are being actively maintained and paid for month after month. Not just 7 million individual purchases of the software. The level of graphic detail and interactivity in this thing are LIGHT YEARS ahead of the games you and I grew up with. And the games (Everquest largely started it, WoW has pretty much perfected it) are built to reward CONSTANT play. The player/character's power and influence are directly commensurate with the amount of time spent playing it, and when you reduce your time playing you fall behind the pathologically obsessive people in power. People spend more time on the game than they do at work. It's easy to start playing, and it doesn't require you to schedule time with your friends to meet someplace- you can always play alone, or join a guild and have adventuring partners available 24/7, or schedule with real-world friends if you feel like it. But you don't need them.

Add in directly competitive features, such as rankings for the most kills in a faction on each server for the people who love player vs player, and you have people who are usually very high-functioning all of a sudden calling in sick to work when they have a big raid or spending less time with their kids because their guild needs their attention. I know multiple people like this, and at least half the people who have dropped out of GW gaming in my area are regular players of MMORPGs.

I know two guys who have had to quit the game cold turkey because the time investment required by it caused problems with their family life.

In a normal computer game you play it, watch the credits, then put it in the shelf. If it's one of the greats like Civ or UFO then you might play it more times.

In WoW there is no end. You need to get a "better" weapon or pieces of armour so you can fight the "tougher" enemy ad nauseum. There is no final boss. Since the company's profit is based on time investment, they need you to keep your account open as long as possible. Big raids take many hours and if you want to be in a "successful" guild your time investment will be truly staggering. Think of a second job.

I do not understand the social, psychological or physical reasons for addiction to such games as EQ or WoW, but they are there and need to be studied carefully as to some people their effect is similar to a drug addiction.

How does this affect the wargaming hobby? Well, if one is addicted to WoW then they do not play 40k or Warmachine nor invest in it anymore. With a miniature army, that is it. You have a set rulebook and a set army. In WoW you can get the "Perfect Sword of Kickass Stats" and then earn bragging rights for it.

As for the actual TOPIC of the thread, thanks again to Mikhaila for shedding light on the shoddy methodology and lack of real valid statistical data behind this thing.

While at my local store it appears that PP is eating GW's lunch, that does not necessarily make it so nationally, or even regionally. The store which runs the big WM league locally just shortened their hours, and the one two towns over which has an active 40k league has not. Are the two data conclusive evidence about which game is doing better? Of course not. But they are interesting.

Posted By Mannahnin on 04/03/2007 8:58 AM
They're not kidding, Osbad. 7 million accounts are being actively maintained and paid for month after month. Not just 7 million individual purchases of the software. The level of graphic detail and interactivity in this thing are LIGHT YEARS ahead of the games you and I grew up with. And the games (Everquest largely started it, WoW has pretty much perfected it) are built to reward CONSTANT play. The player/character's power and influence are directly commensurate with the amount of time spent playing it, and when you reduce your time playing you fall behind the pathologically obsessive people in power. People spend more time on the game than they do at work. It's easy to start playing, and it doesn't require you to schedule time with your friends to meet someplace- you can always play alone, or join a guild and have adventuring partners available 24/7, or schedule with real-world friends if you feel like it. But you don't need them.

Add in directly competitive features, such as rankings for the most kills in a faction on each server for the people who love player vs player, and you have people who are usually very high-functioning all of a sudden calling in sick to work when they have a big raid or spending less time with their kids because their guild needs their attention. I know multiple people like this, and at least half the people who have dropped out of GW gaming in my area are regular players of MMORPGs.

I know two guys who have had to quit the game cold turkey because the time investment required by it caused problems with their family life.

So in other words, nature is self selecting out those not fit to survive and breed? Hail WOW replacing savanna lions  since 1997... >

Posted By Osbad on 04/03/2007 7:56 AM

Or am I missing something here? Is WoW (and other MMORPGs) truly a radically different beast somehow because of the increased "interactive" element to their offering?

I think it is Osbad.

When I am the game shop, and my buddies say "I cant stay for a game because we are having a raid at 4pm. I just stopped by to talk" then it is quite apparent that these formerly very diehard wargamers are moving towards the dark side.


I even invite them to my house to paint regularly, but that stoped becuse, you guessed it, "I cant stay to paint because we are having a raid at 4pm. I just stopped by to talk"....

Its getting kind of old, and I am becomeing quite bitter towards the game.

Here is a good example of the depth of immersion WoW gives.

www.youtube.com/watch

Not only that, but you can seperate yourselves from reality while becoming diabetic as well!

www.youtube.com/watch

Posted By jfrazell on 04/03/2007 9:07 AM

So in other words, nature is self selecting out those not fit to survive and breed? Hail WOW replacing savanna lions  since 1997... >

This is a nerd board so I wont feel bad for saying this:

"I tap one white mana during my second main phase and summon a savannah lion. "

Pssshaaaw.I bought WoW fearing it would be the gamer heroin that made me quit my PhD and lose my social life.But you know what? It's dull. You have no effect on anything. Cleared out the troll cave? Doesn't matter, they'll respawn in 180 seconds. Bleh. I've no interest. And "adventuring parties"? Sorry, but illiterate 11 year olds do not equal fun company for me. Nor does being challenged to a duel every four steps. Give me old fashioned D'n'D and a good game of warhammer any day.
I mean, it's not a terrible game, but wargaming is far more absorbing for me.
I really don't understand why it's such a big craze. (I haven't played it in nearly two weeks.)

I can, and I share the exact same complaints and interests as you. I get my gaming kicks from (in order of time spent presently) D&D, Warmachine, 40k, and Warhammer.

I gave WoW a try on a friend's system, and despite the illiterates I found it enjoyable and the graphics excellent, and felt all my latent obsessive compulsive tendencies rip themselves from the oceanic floor of my subconscious and rise, Cthonically from the depths. I was probably only saved by the fact that I'm not a computer gamer in the first place- spending the money and effort on my system are so foreign to me that there really was a startup effort barrier. And thus I kept my Sanity.

Fair enough. I was far more addicted to oblivion. That, I had to get rid of. (I think having no effect on the game world bugs me a lot).
I feel really bad for the severe addicts, but I suppose they really enjoy it, so whatever.
Blizzard are raking it in.
As for the survey, I'm not sure what it's supposed to say. Without actual sales stats, you've just got subjective opinion.
But all this talk of PP and what not makes me want to go have a look anyway.

World of Warcraft is no good (from my opinon) because it is chock full of annoying children and is too cartoony anyway. I enjoyed Camelot immensely though, and have just bought Vangaurd.

The rule for playing online games is to quit for a few months every now and then. It saveas money prevents the game from becoming repetitive and preserves sanity.

Besides..... there are real character farms that create characters and sell them on ebay.... and folks buy them to imporve their standing. It´s like Second life.... and I don´t know which is worse.....

I think computer games deliver on players' demand for instant gratification.  It takes effort and planning to arrange a tabletop game. Few locations I know offer an environment where I can walk in and get a game going immediately without effort on my part. It can be very frustrating to spend hours modeling and painting an army if I am unable to find an oppenent. Gaming companies like Privateer Press and Games Workshop can make it easier for players by offering support through demonstration teams and online resources, but they can't compete with the plug and play of online games.  If there was an online wargame with customizable armies, I think the hobby might collapse. I predict purely competitive players would move to the online game, leaving behind only the grognards who enjoy the modeling and painting as well as competitive play.

 

Thanks for the information guys. The 1st person "hack and slay" element of WoW is something that kept me from even opening the box, so it is interesting to find out what is so attractive to others about that particular game which is held by many to be the "bete noir" of wargaming and the reason why many at the fringes of the hobby get distracted and thus 40k (as arguably being the most accessible wargame to kids) suffers. I appreciate it is slightly OT for this particular thread, but this thread is one of many that are about what is happening in the wider wargaming industry that we all inhabit, so I hope enlightening this poor soul will not derail the wider discussion!

My point is I'm trying to understand what is happening to the market - how it is contracting/expanding. It is possible (through threads such as the original topic for this one) to get some inkling of how the pie is currently divided up, but much harder to understand what is happening to the industry as a whole.

Fact: GW's turnover is falling in "real" terms and their profit has collapsed to virtually zero for the last two years.

Supposition A: GW's market share is being eroded by competitors like PP and R.

Supposition B: The overall market is falling and GW is suffering because of that.

Trying to get a grasp of the relative importance of suppositions A and B is of interest to me, and of relevance to this thread and all "wargames industry"/"GW business" type discussions I hope.

Anyhow. I can now see why WoW may be sucking more gamers away from other pursuits than other previous big computer gaming developments have. The 7 million accounts may or may not be comparable to the number of Gameboys that were bought in 1990, but it sure seems like a lot of people!

The question is, will the effect last. From the comments made of what it is that is addictive, then it seems to trigger some latent addictive personality that is probably not present in all gamers. When I first played D&D back when Noah was a lad and it came in three tatty brown books, "dungeons" were well-primitive affairs - mere "hack and slay gp-fests". That trend morphed over time into whole new fantasy realms that were a lot more engaging. As things stand WoW seems to only attract "certain types" of gamer. Whether they will remain addicted in large enough numbers to keep them away from other pursuits forever, or whether it is another passing fad (just larger than many others) is not clear yet. Most likely technology will develope so that WoW does become more interactive like D&D did (i.e. the Trolls stay dead, and "raids" are more than just slaying regenerating monsters) if so more gamers will be sucked in. In which case the industry as a whole will continue to face this challenge to its existance. Maybe the industry has reached "saturation point" and has to do a lot more to attract new business. If the cost of attracting that new business is more than the revenue will be from it, then saturation point has been reached.

Manufacturers will have to work in partnership with retailers to make their product more attractive and "easy" to get into if they are to attract the "kiddie dollar" then.

Maybe the growth of PP is partially about smaller, warband-size games being easier to get into. It will be interesting to see next year's figures when AT-43 will have had a chance to make some impact. Will the "prepainted" side of things make them more attractive to the "WoW generation", keen on an "instant fix"?

I hope that in the world of the internet which opens up global markets to the small manufacturer in a way undreamed of just a dozen years ago, there will be enough "old farts" left to support an industry producing the kind of high quality, reasonably--priced models that we want, and that it won't be squeezed out entirely by the large corporates who need the massive sales levels that "easier access" type games can genearate in comparison to the more traditional fare.

The kind of thing that gives me hope is that for instance the internet has saved Grenadier and Epic which had disappeared off the radar a few years back. Maybe 40k and the like will go that wa. Maybe the days of "easy access" to 40k will get shafted by WoW, but I doubt that the games will go away entirely. Although we'll probably have to work harder to find opponents. But honestly guys, since I started my gaming interest in 1979 there has never been a time when finding fellow players for anything other than GW-core games was *that* easy so I see the "40k phenomenon" as a bit of an abberation, and it's maybe no surprise that those that were attracted to the lieks of 40k purely "because it is easy to find a game", then get put off "because it is easier to play WOW".

Anyway, time to end my ramblings. Interesting thread (for me at least).

Cheers
Paul

China has laws regarding MMORPGs because they are just as addictive as cigarettes, drugs and alcohol if not more. For example, for the game to be legal in China the player character has to stop gaining experience after 6 or 8 hours of playing and starts gaining experience the following day.

I played WoW hardcore before the Burning Crusade expansion and a little afterwards but I've quit completely now. I completed all the dungeons and quests with one of the best guilds in the world, chasing after world first kills of particularly difficult boss mobs and so forth. What I can say is that the game is designed so that everything can be attained but it will take hours and hours of time. Blizzard is ever simplifying the game, making dungeons easier and better available for smaller groups all the while making player versus player rewards easier to achieve. However the change to easier is only regarding individual player skill and team communication and coordination. Gaining the rewards you crave will still take hundreds of hours of time to acquire.

As a parent I would never allow my son to get sucked into the MMORPG circus. We all know all the great businesses sell something people really depend on or get addicted of and these games are all the same. Blizzard is happy if all of your personal lives go to ruin, you start skipping school or taking extra vacations off work just so that you can keep gathering epic items in your little personal universe where you aren't the normal guy with a normal job but a hero of unlimited power.

WoW has had a hit on the mini-wargaming scene.

I play WoW and know 5 people in my guild that played WHFB/40K and since getting into WoW, haven't pushed a miniature around on the table since then. And they have been playing for 2 years or more. There are possibly more, but I really don't know them because of the small groups that have formed within the guild.

Now, back to the original subject. PP is destroying GW locally. We have a couple of guys getting stuff for WHFB armies, but the speed that that product is moving is nothing compared to how fast WM/Hordes moves. The Primetime tournament last Sat had 8 players and our league had 10 players(all local.) The last 40K tournament here only had 10 players with at least 4 of them being from out of town.

Local distrubutions mean very little though.
Tigers might be common in some locales, but they're still massively endangered.

Posted By G.I.Journalist on 04/04/2007 3:09 AM

If there was an online wargame with customizable armies, I think the hobby might collapse. I predict purely competitive players would move to the online game, leaving behind only the grognards who enjoy the modeling and painting as well as competitive play.

This is a very interesting statement, to me at least. It's not the argument he's making that intrigues me (as a matter of fact, I think he's probably right) but his concept of the hobby. He sees the hobby as a purely 40k/WFB pasttime.

Now, I realise that this is, primarily a 40k/WFB forum with the occasional bit of WM/H, Conf/Rag, FoW or even SST thrown in, so it's only natural that most people on here are going to talk about those games most of the time.

However, it seems, from a comment like this, that G.I.Journalist has partly bought into the concept that Games Workshop has been pushing the last fifteen years, i.e. it's the Games Workshop Hobby and not wargaming. ("Wargaming is boring, with old fat men pushing around badly painted clumps of Napoleonic 15mm figures and using d10s and rulebooks that are twice the size of telephone book. But the Games Workshop Hobby is fun, kids! See well-painted minis! And they're huge - 28mm heroic scale and growing! And the rules are so simple a chimp could understand them - or write them..."

Now, the reason I said partly is because that's what I meant. He's buying into the lie that one kind of wargaming is not only better than others but also that it really isn't wargaming at all (that's the "it's cool because it's not really like the others" effect often used in advertising), but only partly so because (I'm assuming) he doesn't only play GW games. So he (and again, this is pure assumption - sorry G.I.Journalist, just using you as an example) has a belief that the wargames he plays are either not real wargaming (they're better) or are the only real wargaming (others are worse).

This seems to be a common belief on this forum and elsewhere but again, maybe that's only to be expected given the forum's nature.

My point is, his comment that only the Old Grognards would be left is not out-of-place. After all, historical wargaming is alive and well, just less flashy and needy than 'the GW hobby' and the like. If, as he says, such an occurrence happened, then would 40k players and the like become a twin image of what historial wargamers are now?

Or maybe I'm just thinking too much.

Sorry for taking the thread OT.

I'm not buying into the whole WoW is destroying mini gaming.  While I know many folks who have fallen prey to the mighty MMORPG, Ultima Online and Everquest were at their peak at the SAME TIME that GW was at its peak.

In the early 2000's, GT's were growing, Games Days were spreading, RT stores were opening all over the place, and the RT tourneys in White Dwarf took up 2-3 pages to list.  It was at this very same time that UO and EQ were huge.  In fact, I remember my brother and I visiting GW HQ and chatting with them about UO and their guilds.  Most gamers did both.

So if MMORPG's existed then and now, and GW existed then and now, what has changed?

Well, Battlefront (Flames of War) and Privateer Press (Warmachine) were both born around then, and have been slowly growing from small start up companies to real corporations with solid product lines.

GW has some amazing strengths:

• Awesome number of armies
• Exceptional models
• Great universe and background
• Big company with deep pockets
• Large, established fan base running exceptional events (like Adepticon)
• Lots of games of various sizes and genres.

But GW has also taken some questionable adventures since 2000:

• Increased prices by 30-40% since then
• Invested lots of money in LoTR licenses, which appears to have been a short term gain, long term lost
• Tryied some questionable expensive over seas adventures (China? Japan?)
• Clamped down on Internet sales
• Clamped down on the use of thier IP on fan sites
• Aborted the Outrider program
• All but dropped RT tournies, by increasing the price of the "kits".
• Pulled back on GT's and Games Days.
• Provided little or no support for Specialist games

Regardless of wheather or not your fully believe in the ICv2 report, the fact that it is even conceivable that WM and Hordes could outsell WHFB should give GW pause.  If the mini game market is indeed shrinking, and GW is loosing sales how is it possible that Privateer and Battlefront are growing?  Either they appeal to a different group of of people that don't play GW games (which would mean the market is growing, not shrinking) .... or ... they are eating into GW's market share.

 

You do realize Russ though that EQ and Ultima didn't have the same impact on the tabletop gamer crowd. It was popular, but not that popular with a lot of the hobbyists. It was more popular with the RPG crowd. I think there are maybe one or two people from our group in that era that played either game. The long load times and hours of extended camping where nothing happened gave you time to also do other things. WoW has changed a lot of that, and I see a more diverse crowd getting into WoW that never would have touched the previous games.


The interesting thing is that Warmachine is a lot like a collectible card game without the collectible part. It is all about combos, and each release there is more to figure out and use. It really is an entirely different machine than most other TT games and has a different drive. I don't see it slowing down. But it does eventually hit a wall, like Rakham. You can only release so much before it starts weighing down the entire system. Stores don't want to carry that much stock, and certain models seen as less efficient are left on the shelves. Rakham does an entire system overhaul. Will that be what PP has to do?

If GW are losing profits, I wouldn't be suprised if it's to do with the 30-40% price rise. I bought BfSP, a box of wolf riders, an orc army book and some fanatics and a pair of burna boyz in the last 7 months, a period where I've had more disposable income than ever before in my life. In times gone by, I'd probably have bought edited more, but D'n'D minis were just cheaper and more attractive to me, with the tighter ruleset and lack of effort. Now I'm getting back into GW games, but I have no planned purchases until the new Ork codex comes out.

Which it is looking more and more like the Ork army box is released Christmas.

I am going to have to chime in here a little and say that before this year, GW has had a lot of releases that just weren't must haves or exciting. The Eldar dex was quite a change from that with a lot of models purchased "just because".

@ Osbad

You may have strcuk a slight chord with certain type of gamers being drawn away. Even Mannahnin admitted that WoW brought out all of his latent dep seated Obsessive compulsive behaviors.

Many people who play and collect games hav an obsessive compulsive personality type (OCD), and I beleive that those types are the ones being drawn away from the tabletop wargaming niche.

It is pretty apparent that OCD personalities are present in gaming. Look at any collectible game craze and you can see the urge arise.

While I dont beleive the OCD's are the most prevalent types of gamers, they do serve to make up a fair share of the gamers I have encountered. Perhaps it is becaus I have the same personality type as well. As I am attracted to such games that "reward" me for amassing large quanitities of collectible games.

Even in 40K it is present. how many GW gamers do you know that collect 12 armies yet barely have one that is playable?

I've never once met someone in a game store who is certifiably OCD. I would say that it has more to do with addictive personalities, which are far more common. It's just a matter of what your bent is in regards to your addictions. Buying new releases that you don't need isn't obsessive-compulsive, it's an addiction. Gamers don't tend to display the anxiety and repetitive "rituals" that are a part of OCD.

Oh yes they do. Most of them are at manageable levels that don't actively interfere with their lives, but OCD tendencies are pretty common.

Collecting models cannot be physiologically habit-forming, so it must be mental. I am more inclined to see excesses of this behavior as representing compulsive behavior than addictive. Mind you, I'm just writing from the perspective of someone who did his undergrad studies in psych, and whose family has low-level (and occasionally full-blown) OCD in spades. I'm not a psychologist or psychiatrist by any means, though that's the direction I was headed before I elected not to go to grad school.

Posted By fleshcross on 04/04/2007 11:11 AM
I've never once met someone in a game store who is certifiably OCD. I would say that it has more to do with addictive personalities, which are far more common. It's just a matter of what your bent is in regards to your addictions. Buying new releases that you don't need isn't obsessive-compulsive, it's an addiction. Gamers don't tend to display the anxiety and repetitive "rituals" that are a part of OCD.

I may not have as much formal education as Ragnar concerning Psych, I have been a Habilition Aide (glorified babysitter who has to be keenly knowledgable about certain clients conditions) for developmentally disabled adults long enough to know the behavioral tendencies of OCD intimately.

Even my psych professor urged his students who were gamers to try to write a thesis concerning the behavioral tendencies of certain personality types who involve themselves (sometimes the involvement could be considered all encompassing passion) in gaming of all types and its possible correlations to clinical OCD.

That was 8 years ago, I hear no one has taken him up on the difficult challenge as of yet. Probably because it would mean a new entry into the DSM.

Well, as has been pointed out here and elsewhere, Video game/internet addiction is recognized in several foreign countries and treatment programs have appeared. If for that, why not Tabletop games as well?

I don't know if it would need a new entry in the DSM or an expansion on gambling addiction, but that's not my training...

Posted By Stu-Rat on 04/04/2007 5:39 AM

However, it seems, from a comment like this, that G.I.Journalist has partly bought into the concept that Games Workshop has been pushing the last fifteen years, i.e. it's the Games Workshop Hobby and not wargaming. ("Wargaming is boring, with old fat men pushing around badly painted clumps of Napoleonic 15mm figures and using d10s and rulebooks that are twice the size of telephone book. But the Games Workshop Hobby is fun, kids! See well-painted minis! And they're huge - 28mm heroic scale and growing! And the rules are so simple a chimp could understand them - or write them..."

Now, the reason I said partly is because that's what I meant. He's buying into the lie that one kind of wargaming is not only better than others but also that it really isn't wargaming at all (that's the "it's cool because it's not really like the others" effect often used in advertising), but only partly so because (I'm assuming) he doesn't only play GW games. So he (and again, this is pure assumption - sorry G.I.Journalist, just using you as an example) has a belief that the wargames he plays are either not real wargaming (they're better) or are the only real wargaming (others are worse).

This seems to be a common belief on this forum and elsewhere but again, maybe that's only to be expected given the forum's nature.

My point is, his comment that only the Old Grognards would be left is not out-of-place. After all, historical wargaming is alive and well, just less flashy and needy than 'the GW hobby' and the like. If, as he says, such an occurrence happened, then would 40k players and the like become a twin image of what historial wargamers are now?

 

I think you are spot on with this assessment.  The wargaming hobby may not be the exclusive property of Games Workshop, Privateer Press, or any other gaming company, but when I buy into a particular ruleset like Warhammer, by and large I am accepting a single interpretation of what "the hobby" is.

The Warhammer rules were created solely for the purpose of selling Citadel models. Games Workshop has stated this themselves. The rules are a brilliant marketing tool, so when I bought the rules I bought into the entire marketing campaign.  I don't play Warhammer because it's a superior product.  I play Warhammer for the same reason I drink Coca-cola products when I go to a fast food restaraunt; it's what's readily available.  Privateer Press is Pepsi to Games Workshop's Coke.  I'm hoping that the competion pushes both companies to improve their product. 

I suspect it's only a matter of time before someone creates an online customizable wargame like the one I described.  Tabletop gamers from all genres are likely to find themselves lumped into the same group if an online wargame is able to tap into the tabletop customer base.  If Games Workshop is smart they'll make good use of their intellectual property and existing fan base to create such a game themselves, but I suspect they are unlikely to change their way of doing business until someone threatens their market share.

Very likely. The question predicated by this thread though is that the "top five" rankings showed PP had successfully threatened GW's market share by causing WFB to tumble down the ratings. At least in the US, and according to the (probably) unscientific survey.

The question remains how much of GW's fall in profits is down to a decline in market or a decline in market share or some combination of both.

GW take the official line that their problems are down to declining market - particularly the impact of new generation computer games. My suspicion is that GW are more threatened than they let on by PP, and that the impact of video games (and the "LotR bubble" is less than they claim. My suspicion is that people are preferring to play games other than 40k and WFB rather than quitting the hobby altogether.

My evidence for this suspicion is that PP seems to be marching ahead and bucking the "trend" (which may indicate it isn't a trend after all). This is interesting because PP's tactics on the whole are those GW used a few years back - the creation of unique IP, tournament circuits, own-brand paints etc.

Because PP's financial results aren't a matter of public record (unlike GW and R) this suspicion is only a suspicion of course.

All good grist for the rumour mill though!

Why does this matter?

Because if it is a declining market then its pretty much bad news for customers and there's not a lot that management can do to win as everything will result in lower profit. Consequently they have little incentive to innovate and develop, and every incentive to cut long-term costs.

On the other hand, if the market isn't declining much, but GW's woes are down to competition from the likes of PP, then its all wonderful for the consumer - competition rewards innovation and competitive pricing structures. Competition in a stable market is of great benefit to the consumer (us!)

See where I'm getting at?

Posted By Osbad on 04/05/2007 5:28 AM

I
(snippity snippers)
Why does this matter?

Because if it is a declining market then its pretty much bad news for customers and there's not a lot that management can do to win as everything will result in lower profit. Consequently they have little incentive to innovate and develop, and every incentive to cut long-term costs.

On the other hand, if the market isn't declining much, but GW's woes are down to competition from the likes of PP, then its all wonderful for the consumer - competition rewards innovation and competitive pricing structures. Competition in a stable market is of great benefit to the consumer (us!)

See where I'm getting at?

NO, you have completely talked yourself in a circle..  I am finding this thread less and less informative the longer it goes on.. it's not your fault really, but the general lack of knowledge about said survey.. All the speculation and conjecture lies fully on whether that survey has any validity at all. If it is valid then you have a point, if it is not valid the point is moot..

If the market is declining, is this not just another form of compettition?
All leisure activities must compete for my time. (and money)
By innovating and keeping me interested (instead of, oh I dunno, ignoring my faction for 8-9 years), they'd be scoring a lot of profit from me. As it is, I'm a bitter shell of the enthusiastic gamer I was about 4-5 years ago. I seriously think this sort of thing damages GW more than they realise. But I have no evidence.

I think his point is this.  Can all the following be true?

1. The gaming market IS shrinking
2. GW is NOT loosing market share.
3. The ICv2 report is wrong
4. PP, as a business, is growing
5. Battlefront, as a business, is growing

Lines 1 and 2 CAN'T be true if lines 4 and 5 are.   That is, if the market is shrinking, and GW isn't loosing market share, there is no way other mini companies could be gaining customers.

How do we know 4 & 5 to be true?  Well, I admit this isn't very scientific, but the anecdotal evidence is very strong.  Look at the quality of the products coming out of PP and BF, both are getting better and better, and their range is growing.  If there is no money coming in the door, these companies would be starting to run out of funding, new products would slow, and quality would drop off. 

If you accept that 4 & 5 might be true, then 3 follows, as it supports the evidence.  That is 3, 4, & 5 support each other and disprove 1 & 2.

Lastly, lets look at the source.  We've got two separate companies we can look at who seem to be going along nicely.  We also have a 3rd party report from ICv2 indicating that PP, at least, is eating into GW's market share.

What evidence do we have that 1 & 2 are true? Ironically it comes from the same source.  GW's stock holder report.  Who do you believe?

Whew!  So to get back to the original point made by our lovable "grumpy old fart" if 3, 4, & 5 are true, it is GOOD NEWS for us gamers.  It means that our hobby isn't going away, just that there are now more players (i.e. companies) in the game.  It means more choices for use gamers, and that GW will have to get a bit more competitive and perhaps start adopting some of the standards the other companies are bringing to the industry.

Posted By RussWakelin on 04/05/2007 8:18 AM

On the other hand, if the market isn't declining much, but GW's woes are down to competition from the likes of PP, then its all wonderful for the consumer - competition rewards innovation and competitive pricing structures. Competition in a stable market is of great benefit to the consumer (us!)

I think his point is this.  Can all the following be true?

1. The gaming market IS shrinking
2. GW is NOT loosing market share.
3. The ICv2 report is wrong
4. PP, as a business, is growing
5. Battlefront, as a business, is growing

Lines 1 and 2 CAN'T be true if lines 4 and 5 are.   That is, if the market is shrinking, and GW isn't loosing market share, there is no way other mini companies could be gaining customers.

How do we know 4 & 5 to be true?  Well, I admit this isn't very scientific, but the anecdotal evidence is very strong.  Look at the quality of the products coming out of PP and BF, both are getting better and better, and their range is growing.  If there is no money coming in the door, these companies would be starting to run out of funding, new products would slow, and quality would drop off. 

If you accept that 4 & 5 might be true, then 3 follows, as it supports the evidence.  That is 3, 4, & 5 support each other and disprove 1 & 2.

Lastly, lets look at the source.  We've got two separate companies we can look at who seem to be going along nicely.  We also have a 3rd party report from ICv2 indicating that PP, at least, is eating into GW's market share.

What evidence do we have that 1 & 2 are true? Ironically it comes from the same source.  GW's stock holder report.  Who do you believe?

Whew!  So to get back to the original point made by our lovable "grumpy old fart" if 3, 4, & 5 are true, it is GOOD NEWS for us gamers.  It means that our hobby isn't going away, just that there are now more players (i.e. companies) in the game.  It means more choices for use gamers, and that GW will have to get a bit more competitive and perhaps start adopting some of the standards the other companies are bringing to the industry.

Thats not a correct statement Russ. The corporate world is replete with companies gaining market share in industries that are themselves declining.  Television news is an excellent example. A particular network's share may be growing, but the overall pool of people watching network news is shrinking.

Not to try and flame the owner of this website Russ, but your proof of logic sturcture is totally wrong.

4 and 5 do not neccessarily have anything to do with number 1 and 2.

This statement would absolutely be true if there where only these three miniature gaming companies around.

PP could be growing, while GW is not shrinking, at the same time the market could be shrinking.

if 100 people are gamers, 50 play GW, 25 played PP, 25 played other games.

Next ywar, we could have 90 players, 50 play GW, 35 play PP, 5 play other games.

There you have a shrinking pool, a growing PP, as well as a static GW.

As for the whole GW arguemnt, it would be great if they took a great loss. Then we could get a higher standard of quality for rules, and cheaper minis.

Even so, if the market is shrinking, innovation is equally important!
So what if your competition is a video games company rather than another gaming company- it's still competition and the same principle applies. No doubt this is why GW have been dumbing things down a bit lately, to make wargames a bit more "plug and play"-able. The problem is, wargames aren't and never will be a pastime for people with short attention spans or a need for a quick fix.
*shrug*

The only problem with your statement is that it assumes that GW is not loosing money. Their Stock report indicated their sales are down.

But you are correct, there is a third assumption to my argument I did not state, that is that the percentage of miniature gamers that only spend money on games other than PP, BF, and GW is negligible.

In my head it looks something like this....

Market Share (Fictitious numbers made up by Russ for the sake of the discussion)
GW: 60%
PP: 25%
BF: 13%
Other: 2%

For PP or BF to appreciably grow, going after the "Other" market is negligible. Of course this is just my feeling of how the market is right now, I've got no numbers to back that up except for what little I know about event sizes and Internet activity. That is, you simply don't see major events or major fan based web presences for the "Other" companies.

If we accept the new premise I'm adding above, then I think my argument holds. If the Market is GROWING then everyone wins even if market share is constant. If the markets shrinks, every looses if the share remains fixed.

It is possible that the market is shrinking, but PP and BF are growing, but that would require (under the above assumption) that they are eating into GW share.

 

Actually the hobbyist market is already shrinking for quite some time, most being older players and few new ones. Interestingly there is still a strong gamer market, but is put off by having to immerse itself into the full hobbyist stuf to play a game. So in the end the companies need to open up to the gamers without completely ignoring the wishes of the hobbyists.

I never read the entire post because of time. Give me unpainted models and a sci fi setting outside of gw please? especially if the price is right and the models are good. We have seen much better models (with same or better price) in a fantasy setting. Bet we would see some prices level off or even drop than.

I think you've hit the nail on the head.  While there are genre alternatives to WHFB, there aren't many to 40k.  Which may explain, if the ICv2 report can be believed, why 40k is still #1 while WHFB has slipped.

Startship Troopers was a good effort by Mongoose, but only having 2 armies is a tough sell.   AT-43 has yet to prove itself, and hobby purists would rather not have pre-painted stuff.

There are some VERY IFFY rumors going around that PP might be introducing a new game in 2008.  A new game set in the future? 

[DISCLAIMER] The last paragraph is totally unsubstantiated hearsay and should be taken with a grain of salt the size of a VW beetle.  Or better yet, simply ignore it. [/DISCLAIMER]

Russ,

Isn't PP's new game the gobber card game?

Re: SST

I hear Mongoose is moving to prepainted models in the near future (ala BF: Evo). Does this mean that they'll be dropping traditional SST (or if not dropping, then at least severely reducing support)?

Nevermind. The card game is being released this summer.

Mongoose has said that SST will be a fully supported prepainted game, consider it SST 2nd ed. Whether they repeat the mistakes of BF:Evo remains to be seen. Hopefully they learn from their mistakes. I actually prefer SST to 40k, but couldn't get many others to play due to low quality sculpts and limited army choice.

So essentially the classic SST game is dead then.

One thing that seems possible is that Mongoose and Rackham will fall into the 32X trap.

The Saturn and Dreamcast had trouble getting market acceptance since Sega had a reputation of releasing hardware and then abandoning it a short time later. If the companies release and drop too many game systems in too short a time, gamers may decide to pass.

Unless it's Orks, Dark Eldar, Chaos Dwarfs or Squats, you're GW army will probably be supported 5 or 10 years from now.

The restart of SST after only 2-3 years is rather problematic and it remains to be seen what comes from it. But Rackham changing it´s skirmish-system after over 10 years is more of a necessity. It´s the only pure skirmish-system that has survived longer than a decade, but it has to evolve radically to stay competetive.

Posted By Osbad on 04/05/2007 5:28 AM
Why does this matter?

Because if it is a declining market then its pretty much bad news for customers and there's not a lot that management can do to win as everything will result in lower profit. Consequently they have little incentive to innovate and develop, and every incentive to cut long-term costs.

On the other hand, if the market isn't declining much, but GW's woes are down to competition from the likes of PP, then its all wonderful for the consumer - competition rewards innovation and competitive pricing structures. Competition in a stable market is of great benefit to the consumer (us!)

As a consumer, I want to convince Games Workshop that their losses are a result of competition, so I can reap the benefits.  If Games Workshop chooses to ignore companies like Privateer Press and believes that their losses are a consequence of a declining market, I agree that we'll probablly see very little innovation from GW.

We can continuing to encourage new players to the hobby, but we can't necessarily control the market.  On the other hand, we can bring the competition to Games Workshop's attention. I'm inclined to contact GW's customer service everytime Privateer Press brings out a gorgeous model and asking, "When are you going to release something like that?"

What do you think it will take for Games Workshop to sit up and pay attention?  They certainly noticed that their wallet is lighter, but I'm not certain they believe that competition is the reason. 

Sadly, Mauleed's signature says it best.

"The best way to fix 40k is to play Warmachine."

Eventually they will take notice. I think they may have already, they just may not want to admit it publicly. Time will tell.

In the mean time, we as gamers have a pretty good deal. We now have several great miniature war games to choose from, and companies that will be forced to work hard an inovate to stay strong in a relativly small market.

From the looks of what JJ was talking about at Adepticon, I think they have taken notice and are now starting to react.  More competition is always a good thing and if it improves the games I play and keeps the costs down, then more power to the smaller guys.

Ozymandias, King of Kings